This isn't a good thing is it? Can you not see how this might influence an Australian's response to awards such as the Golden Boot - and much else besides?

Why would somebody like Phil "Buzz" Rothfield - the Sydney Telegraph's big cheese re rugby league - write "Kevin Who?" with regard to Sinfield's winning of this award? It is not merely that he is genuinely ignorant as to the identity of a major figure in the success of this country's leading club, but that he parades his ignorance as if it were a badge of honour, something to be proud of, to be celebrated and employed as if it were an argument-clincher. Is it not partly his job - and he's not alone - to keep abreast of the game's developments elsewhere? It's as if Australian rugby league people like being mocked by Australian rugby union followers on sundry forums for their insularity...

As I said earlier in this thread, I would have been happy to see Cameron Smith take the award ahead of Sinfield but, unlike so many Australians, I am neither shocked nor offended to see the admirable Sinfield take this award - partly because, whatever Rothfield and his "Kevin Who?" nonsense might suggest, these two players are not so far apart either in terms of their abilities or their achievements.

Apologies if I missed this, and your explanation about why you won;t name who voted for who is a fair enough one - but can you confirm the make-up of the panel?

Was this made up of representatives from England, Australia, NZ, France, players, coaches, pundits etc? Has the make-up of the panel changed from previous years (again, not actually interested in who the individuals are).

This isn't a good thing is it? Can you not see how this might influence an Australian's response to awards such as the Golden Boot - and much else besides?

Why would somebody like Phil "Buzz" Rothfield - the Sydney Telegraph's big cheese re rugby league - write "Kevin Who?" with regard to Sinfield's winning of this award? It is not merely that he is genuinely ignorant as to the identity of a major figure in the success of this country's leading club, but that he parades his ignorance as if it were a badge of honour, something to be proud of, to be celebrated and employed as if it were an argument-clincher. Is it not partly his job - and he's not alone - to keep abreast of the game's developments elsewhere? It's as if Australian rugby league people like being mocked by Australian rugby union followers on sundry forums for their insularity...

As I said earlier in this thread, I would have been happy to see Cameron Smith take the award ahead of Sinfield but, unlike so many Australians, I am neither shocked nor offended to see the admirable Sinfield take this award - partly because, whatever Rothfield and his "Kevin Who?" nonsense might suggest, these two players are not so far apart either in terms of their abilities or their achievements.

I've always found the tendency of some Rugby League journalists, particularly in Australia, but not exclusively so, to parade their own ignorance and prejudices as something to be proud of to be quite frustrating. It rarely seems to happen in the case of sports journalists working in fields other than Rugby League. But it makes selecting judges with an open mind quite a challenge.

I've even had it in England, with the occasional writer proclaiming loudly that he has never heard of Albert Goldthorpe, for example.

Of course there was little to choose between Cameron Smith and Kevin Sinfield, as you suggest, but at least the judges studied the performance and record of both players very carefully before coming to their conclusions.

Apologies if I missed this, and your explanation about why you won;t name who voted for who is a fair enough one - but can you confirm the make-up of the panel?

Was this made up of representatives from England, Australia, NZ, France, players, coaches, pundits etc? Has the make-up of the panel changed from previous years (again, not actually interested in who the individuals are).

I was a bit late reading this week's League Express - in fact only this lunchtime - and it's worth reading Malcolm Andrew's views on the boot this year. He says that he wasn't asked to take part in the voting this year as the magazine were looking to reduce the amount of foreign correspondents on the panel due to the lack of serious international competition.

TBF - we aren;t talking about Sinfield's perfromances from 1997. We are talking about whether he was the best player in the world in 2012.

I have just replied to a comment on another forum .the op said he hoped in in the unlikely event of Lockers or any other capt leading his club to 6 SL titles we would not begrudge him this award.I POINTED OUT THE CRITERIA FOR THE AWARD.It did surprise me that Sinfield got it actually,not because I dont think he should be in the running either!

Um, because they were both in contention for the same award, why wouldn't I compare the two when this is supposedly deciding the best footballer in the world, why would I not compare them as footballers, technically the Greatest Leeds player last year was Ryan Hall who won the Leeds Rhino player of the year award, not "the best player in the world Kevin Sinfield"

Ryan Hall is an excellent winger not the best player at the Leeds rlfc ,their is a different player each years gets the club player of the year ,I think it may have been JJB last year.The work that Sinfield gets through while Hally is stood on the wing waiting for a pass is another reason Hall is not a better or more important player than Kevin Sinfield

Edited by fieldofclothofgold, 10 January 2013 - 03:26 PM.

but you and I weve been through that and this is not our fate.
So let us so let us not talk falsely now.
The hour is getting late
FROM 2004,TO DO WHAT THIS CLUB HAS DONE,IF THATS NOT GREATNESSTHEN i DONT KNOW WHAT IS.

This isn't a good thing is it? Can you not see how this might influence an Australian's response to awards such as the Golden Boot - and much else besides?

Why would somebody like Phil "Buzz" Rothfield - the Sydney Telegraph's big cheese re rugby league - write "Kevin Who?" with regard to Sinfield's winning of this award? It is not merely that he is genuinely ignorant as to the identity of a major figure in the success of this country's leading club, but that he parades his ignorance as if it were a badge of honour, something to be proud of, to be celebrated and employed as if it were an argument-clincher. Is it not partly his job - and he's not alone - to keep abreast of the game's developments elsewhere? It's as if Australian rugby league people like being mocked by Australian rugby union followers on sundry forums for their insularity...

As I said earlier in this thread, I would have been happy to see Cameron Smith take the award ahead of Sinfield but, unlike so many Australians, I am neither shocked nor offended to see the admirable Sinfield take this award - partly because, whatever Rothfield and his "Kevin Who?" nonsense might suggest, these two players are not so far apart either in terms of their abilities or their achievements.

He is selling his column in the Media.Its a send up, nothing more or less, English press and players have never done similar?Same as when Thurston was asked about Sam Tomkins ability a couple of years ago in the last four nations series.

He is selling his column in the Media.Its a send up, nothing more or less, English press and players have never done similar?Same as when Thurston was asked about Sam Tomkins ability a couple of years ago in the last four nations series.

I'm suggesting it isn't a send-up.

"English rugby league is barely known in Australia by most fans" is what you wrote. Having read on-line the Sydney Telegraph and Morning Herald and the rugby league pages on the Roar - I agree with you.

Phil Rothfield is no more knowledgeable than the people he writes for - and appears to be proud of it.

"English rugby league is barely known in Australia by most fans" is what you wrote. Having read on-line the Sydney Telegraph and Morning Herald and the rugby league pages on the Roar - I agree with you.

Phil Rothfield is no more knowledgeable than the people he writes for - and appears to be proud of it.

I disagree though.Many fans would know little or even anything of much of England's game but a Journalist and Sports Editor like Rothfield would know.I am not good with words but he made the statement for dramatic effect it would seem.

"Phil Rothfield, sports editor of Australian tabloids the Daily and Sunday Telegraph, tweeted: “League’s Golden Boot award is a farce and has lost all credibility. Kevin Sinfield is not even the best English player in the world.“There needs to be an investigation into the voting of Golden Boot award. #KevinWho?"Anyway, time to move on.

For this year's Golden Boot award we decided to follow the practice elsewhere and not publish the details of the vote, even though we have done it before.

There are several reasons for this.

In the recent past some members of the panel who have cast votes have been subject to vitriolic criticism through social media for the way they voted. With the growth of Twitter and other media I can only imagine that the trend would continue.

The vast majority of other similar polls don't release the details of who voted for whom, as in the RLIF award to Cameron Smith this year, for example, or the Man of Steel award to Sam Tomkins, or any of the other awards associated with the Man of Steel awards night. Historically the Golden Boot voting figures were not released. The IRB award to Dan Carter this year was similarly not accompanied by voting figures.

On the subject of Nate Myles, your condescending comments are quite surprising. Myles won the Wally Lewis Medal as the Player of probably the most competitive State of Origin series yet contested. He was supported very strongly by Mal Meninga in that regard. So if "many Aussies smiled at the inclusion of Nate Myles" I can only imagine that they did so particularly in Queensland.

As for the prestige of the Golden Boot, after all the publicity following the award to Kevin Sinfield it strikes me that it has more prestige than ever before. Just ask virtually any leading player!

It does seem very odd that we aren't allowed to know who is on the voting panel. It doesn't do a great deal for the credibility of the award. The soccer Golden Boot award process involves the publication not only of the voting panel's names but also who they voted for. We can see, for example, who Henry Winter voted for.

If the criticism goes beyond robust comment, which I would have thought most journalists and senior figures in the game would be capable of dealing with, and becomes offensive then there are means of dealing with that through the police and ISPs. If RL has a bigger issue with this kind of behaviour than other sports then we need to deal with it by naming and shaming the trolls.

Even if RL is plagued by trolls, at least the names of the panel should be published? If not then I'm afraid that the award will have questionable credibility.

As a sport RL does suffer from a lack of transparency and accountability, so perhaps this lack of openness just reflects the prevailing culture.

I thought the criteria for the Golden Boot was it is awarded to the best player in an International series.
Best Test Player?
Has that criteria changed to the best recovery from a knock and goal kicking accuracy?
Best player in a Test match would probably be Jonathan Thurston against the World Cup Holders but he was not even nominated.